(Chuck Muth) - I have this bad habit of initially taking people at their word when they run for office. But once I catch you lying and breaking my trust, you’re dead to me. This is the lesson conservatives learned the hard way when we bought Gov. Brian Sandoval’s snake... Read More

]]>

(Chuck Muth) – I have this bad habit of initially taking people at their word when they run for office. But once I catch you lying and breaking my trust, you’re dead to me.

This is the lesson conservatives learned the hard way when we bought Gov. Brian Sandoval’s snake oil campaign claims that he wouldn’t raise taxes – only to have him shove the largest tax hike in Nevada’s history up our collective wazoos once in office.

And that’s why I can’t support former Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman’s bid next year for Nevada’s 3rd congressional district seat.

When Seaman ran for office in 2014 she signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge promising that she would “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.” But once in the Legislature in 2015, she broke her promise not once, not twice, but NINE times (you could look it up).

Of course, now that she’s running for office again she’s trying to cover her butt by playing the disingenuous semantics game that liberals have made an art form. She’s telling people that she didn’t raise “taxes,” only “fees.”

Look, a tax is money the government takes out of your pocket and puts in theirs. A fee is money the government takes money out of your pocket and puts it in theirs. It’s simply a tax by another name.

Liberals have been pulling this kind of crud for years. They say they’re not “pro-abortion,” they’re “pro-choice.” They say they’re not for “gun control,” they’re for “gun safety.” As if changing the term changes the reality. It doesn’t.

The indisputable fact is Seaman made a campaign promise. Put it in writing. Then broke her promise. Nine times. Knowingly. Willingly. And rather than admitting it, begging forgiveness, and promising not to sin again, she’s deceiving voters into believing she’s the “proven conservative” with the “proven record.”

Sorry, but all she’s proved is that you can’t trust and believe anything she tells us – including the outright lies she’s recently been telling about one of her opponents, Michelle Mortensen.

After Mortensen got in the race Seaman started telling people the former KLAS-TV 8 consumer advocate wouldn’t sign the Tax Pledge. But the claim was nakedly false. In fact, Mortensen signed the Tax Pledge at the mall two weeks ago with me and Santa Claus as witnesses! I even have a great photo of it

And in a recent tweet Seaman claimed that Mortensen “seems to have suddenly gone through a conversion to conservatism when this congressional seat opened up.” Which is an outright lie. Mortensen has been such a lifelong conservative that she even named one of her daughters after Ronald Reagan.

Look, I understand that a lot of my conservative friends have been fooled into believing they can take Seaman’s word at face value. I get it. As the saying goes, she can sell ice cubes to Eskimos.

But Seaman’s proven to me that she’s just a self-serving political opportunist who will say anything to get elected and can’t be trusted. And I just can’t support a politician like that. Nevadans don’t need any more “Sandovals” in DC. The “swamp” has enough of those already.

How many times has this happened to you? Your sitting around the dinner table and one of your kids asks, “So what do you think about the consumer welfare standard as applied to anti-trust enforcement of the Sherman Act?” Boy, if I had a dollar for every time that’s come... Read More

]]>

How many times has this happened to you?

Your sitting around the dinner table and one of your kids asks, “So what do you think about the consumer welfare standard as applied to anti-trust enforcement of the Sherman Act?”

Boy, if I had a dollar for every time that’s come up at our house I’d have, well, nothing. But just in case you’re ever challenged about this issue by a precocious teen, let me try to help out.

And while the issue DOES have relevance to your day-to-day life – in particular if you ever use Google, Amazon or Facebook – I might have to add some references to scandals, celebrities and space aliens to keep your interest, OK? Onward…

Last June, Alden Abbott reported in The Daily Signal that the European Commission “fined Google over $2.7 billion for a supposed violation of European antitrust law that bestowed benefits, not harm, on consumers.”

“The commission,” Abbott continued, “claims that Google favored its own comparison shopping service over others in displaying Google search results.”

Now, I feel I might already be losing some of you. So did you hear about actress Jennifer Lawrence getting caught with Sen. Al Franken in a California motel room reading “Rules for Radicals” together when a Martian spaceship landed in Harvey Weinstein’s back yard up the street?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch…

The reason this EU anti-trust fine is something to pay attention to is because there are similar efforts to cripple big tech companies right here in the U.S., with liberal critics, including Sen. Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren, claiming these companies are just “too big.”

Of course, the reason these companies are so big and dominate their markets is because they provide services that a big number of consumers want and use on a regular basis. If these big companies weren’t so good at doing what they do, such big numbers of consumers wouldn’t be using them.

So how is this a bad thing for us consumers?

It’s not. But that’s not stopping big-government liberals from trying to rain on our parade. The Bureaucrats’ Creed: Don’t just stand there; regulate something! Or as Ronald Reagan so beautifully characterized their attitude: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Consumers continue moving online to make tax-free purchases. So the government wants to tax online purchases. Consumers keep using Facebook and Google, so the government wants to regulate them. On the other hand, consumers don’t want to pay for over-priced “green” energy, so the government subsidizes it.

When the government tries to decide if a company is “too big” and needs to be reigned in through the use of the Sherman Act anti-trust laws, the guiding principle is supposed to be the “consumer welfare standard.”

The consumer welfare standard really isn’t complicated. As Marianela Lopez-Galdos wrote recently, “A competition system guided by the consumer welfare standard has as a goal the maximization of consumers’ benefits.”

In the cases of Google and Facebook, it’s hard to argue their services don’t maximize the consumers’ benefits, especially since the consumers don’t, um, pay for anything. You can use Google for free. You can set up a Facebook page for free. Not sure how consumers can get a better deal than that!

And for those who say these companies prevent competitors from getting into the market, remember that’s the same thing many were saying about Wal-Mart…until Amazon came along. And the same thing they were saying about My Space…until Facebook came along. And the same thing they were saying about the taxi cartels…until Uber came along.

Seriously, the LAST thing we need when we dial up Google.com or Facebook.com or Amazon.com is a pop-up video featuring an FTC bureaucrat declaring, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

The real, true danger is from big government. If bureaucrats really want to help, just leave us the heck alone, let us make our own decisions in the free market, and shrink yourself!

OK, that’s enough for now. But if you want to continue following J-Law and Big Al’s excellent adventures with Harvey and the Martians, you can set up a Google “News Alert” for updates. Another great, free service for consumers!

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and publisher of Nevada News & Views. You can Google either to find them.

It goes without saying that Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-NV) and other Members of Congress are where they are today politically thanks in large part to Hillary Clinton’s husband, the Oval Office desk, an intern, a cigar and a certain blue-stained dress. Ick. That infamous ending began with a string of... Read More

]]>

It goes without saying that Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-NV) and other Members of Congress are where they are today politically thanks in large part to Hillary Clinton’s husband, the Oval Office desk, an intern, a cigar and a certain blue-stained dress. Ick.

That infamous ending began with a string of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse – including assault (“You better get some ice for that”) and rape – by numerous women, all of whom were credible and, according to feminist lore, were supposed to be believed.

Yet Hillary stood by her man, feminists defended him and Democrats protected him. So Bill got off, so to speak. But now the pendulum has swung.

Allegations without substantiation of inappropriate behavior from 40 years ago have been leveled against Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore, who hasn’t been accused of actions even remotely similar to those of Bubba before him.

And that, combined with the ongoing purge of Hollywood tycoons and media giants, has opened the floodgates on Capitol Hill with plenty of other shoes yet to drop – especially once the identities of the players being protected by that secret congressional “shush” fund are inevitably revealed.

But there are three dangerous potential side effects looming…

1.) Over-reaction. In Kihuen’s case he’s been accused of propositioning a young woman of his same age for dates and dalliances and twice allegedly “touched her thighs.” It made her feel “uncomfortable.”

This is not sexual assault. No cigars were harmed. No one needed to put ice on a busted lip. No DNA tests on a dress.

This was a twenty-something guy with raging hormones trying to get lucky and being shot down. It was stupid to pursue such an “office romance,” especially in politics. But does it rise to the level of forced resignation? Or is this an example of making a mountain out of a molehill?

2.) False claims. They happen. Have happened. And will happen. So this notion that the woman must *always* be believed must always be viewed with at least a modicum of skepticism.

There are, indeed, women who, for a variety of reasons – sometimes revenge over being spurned – will fabricate an accusation which does grievous harm to an innocent man. This is why the current guilty-until-proven-innocent/trial-by-media environment is so potentially dangerous.

3.) Blow-back. It already happens to blacks and Hispanics every day. An employer who has been stung unfairly by a claim of discrimination decides to avoid any possibility of such headaches in the future by simply not hiring minorities – while taking care to reject them for reasons other than race.

Women are now going to be subjected to similar “underground” discrimination. Employers don’t want or need the potential aggravation. It might not be “fair,” but it is reality.

This is not to excuse the truly piggish behavior of the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Al Franken. But every action spurs a reaction. And an over-reaction will have its own consequences. We can all thank Bill and Hillary Clinton for that.

Liberal blogger/gossip columnist “Jihadi Jon” Ralston is at it again. Todd Gillman, Washington Bureau Chief for the Dallas News, whined in a tweet yesterday that “A deputy White House press secretary, whose taxpayer-funded job literally is to interact with the news media, declined to take questions on the record... Read More

]]>

Liberal blogger/gossip columnist “Jihadi Jon” Ralston is at it again.

Todd Gillman, Washington Bureau Chief for the Dallas News, whined in a tweet yesterday that “A deputy White House press secretary, whose taxpayer-funded job literally is to interact with the news media, declined to take questions on the record during today’s Air Force One gaggle.”

This “entitlement” mentality of these “journalists” is unbelievable. Yes, they have a First Amendment right to ask whatever questions they so choose. But there’s no obligation on the part of anyone, including taxpayer-paid staffers for an elected official, to answer them.

But that didn’t stop the conservative-hating Jihadi Jon from hopping on Gillman’s bandwagon with this self-serving twit-tweet…

“Well, he (the White House press secretary) could have a job with @SenDeanHeller or @adamlaxalt, who have instructed their taxpayer-funded flacks to ignore media requests. These folks are not paid by their elected bosses, as in campaigns; they are paid by us.

That statement is just flat-out false. A bald-faced lie.

Both Heller’s and Laxalt’s offices regularly respond to media requests. You could look it up. Just Google ‘em. Lots and lots of media reports and interviews.

What has Ralston’s laced panties in a wad is the fact that neither considers his biased, conservative-bashing blog to be legitimate “media.” So they ignore HIM and HIS requests. Not real news organizations. Just his “fake news.”

As they should. The guy is a partisan hack with a political agenda. He’s a PR flack for the left who doesn’t deserve the time of day. All Republican candidates and elected officials should follow Heller’s and Laxalt’s example and ignore this goofball.

I almost can’t believe I’m writing this, however… Make no mistake. Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-NV) is the very definition of “empty suit.” He got where he is in Congress today with good looks, Hispanic heritage and the blessing of Harry Reid, the Democrat Party’s godfather. He has zero legislative... Read More

]]>

I almost can’t believe I’m writing this, however…

Make no mistake. Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-NV) is the very definition of “empty suit.” He got where he is in Congress today with good looks, Hispanic heritage and the blessing of Harry Reid, the Democrat Party’s godfather.

He has zero legislative achievements that are his own, is an unreconstituted liberal, and has difficulty answering even the simplest of questions, such as, “Do you want fries with that?”

But I have to agree with the arguments made AGAINST forcing him to resign over allegations of sexual misconduct put forward by Ellen Shaw of Henderson in a letter-to-the-editor published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Tuesday…

“According to a former campaign worker, ‘Samantha,’ Rep. Kihuen asked her out on dates and might have made a pass at her, causing her to feel ‘uncomfortable.’ There is no accusation of sexual assault, no allegation of coercion or threats, no secret button locking victims in an office and no exposure — in fact, nothing much more than a single young man flirting with a young woman he found attractive. None of us really knows the details without corroboration. But if that’s all there is, for goodness sake, let’s all grow up.

“Today we are told to consider any instance of a reportedly uncomfortable or awkward encounter as grounds for a career-ending public shaming of the ‘offender.’ Let me say from experience, far worse things happen in the workplace than asking someone for a date or making a sexual flirtation. Sure, it’s sometimes inappropriate, but is it worthy of such exaggerated reactions? This case is not rape, sexual assault or intimidation a la Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and other such monsters. If it were, I’d applaud Rep. Kihuen’s ever-so-sanctimonious Democrat colleagues suddenly calling for his head.

“I’d love to see Rep. Kihuen lose his congressional seat at the polls, but not because of an unsubstantiated accusation as minor as this one. Have we taken leave of our collective senses?”

I’m with Ellen. I’d love to see Rubey defeated…at the polls. Criminalizing “flirtation” and trying the accused in the press under the un-American legal theory of “guilty until proven innocent” is a very dangerous direction for our society to go in.

Rubey is, in fact, a “nothing burger.” And yes, after Democrats went after Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore a few weeks ago over unsubstantiated allegations made against him from 40 years ago, Rubey’s being hoisted on his party’s own petard. What’s sauce for the goose and all that.

But two wrongs still don’t make a right.

That said, the sharks are circling. I’m hearing that allies of Steven Horsford – another under-achiever promoted by the Democrats’ identity politics/affirmative action policies who held the CD4 seat before Rubey – are reaching out for support of a comeback campaign.

Kihuen is toast. The only question is whether the end of his political career will be slightly browned or burnt to a crisp. Rightly or wrongly considering the circumstances, this is dead candidate walking. (And no, morons, that’s not an actual “death treat.”)

For more than twenty years now, liberal blogger/gossip columnist “Jihadi Jon” Ralston has been colluding with Democrats in Nevada and has served as their unofficial press secretary/communications director. Here are just two recent examples… “Jihadi Jon” Ralston Pulls another Blogger Boner in Anti-Laxalt Crusade Nevada’s “Jihadi Jon” Strikes Again! And... Read More

]]>

For more than twenty years now, liberal blogger/gossip columnist “Jihadi Jon” Ralston has been colluding with Democrats in Nevada and has served as their unofficial press secretary/communications director. Here are just two recent examples…

And here’s what this self-professed “journalist” recently wrote about the proposed common sense ballot initiative to ban sanctuary cities in Nevada…

“If the strategy prevails to drive up the white vote by using ‘sanctuary cities’ and ‘criminal aliens’ the same way Donald Trump did in 2016, to dog-whistle to racist ears with execrable tactics and thus elect The Three Amigos – Roberson for lieutenant governor, Adam Laxalt for governor and Dean Heller for Senate – in a GOP wave, Nevada will have sunk to a new nadir.”

If you haven’t noticed, Jihadi Jon also likes to use fancy words to make himself appear more intelligent than everybody else. It’s an unmistakable sign of true insecurity. But I digress.

Election after election, Republican candidates, party leaders and activists have been sucked into participating in this goofball’s propaganda campaigns – granting him interviews, quotes and debates – only to be stung after the fact by the venomous political scorpion.

Ralston can’t himself it; it’s his nature.

And to paraphrase Ronald Reagan: To sit back hoping that someday, someway, Ralston will treat conservatives fairly is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

To be fair, it’s not always the Republican target’s fault, especially first-time and novice candidates. They simply don’t know better, don’t know Ralston’s anti-GOP history, or are just plain intimidated and scared of what he might do to them if they don’t play along and try to appease him.

As such, it’s time for the Republican Party to step in and provide its candidates and party leaders some cover to protect them from this hateful liberal purveyor of fake news.

As an American, Jihadi Jon has every right to express his opinions – no matter how stupid, vapid and biased they are. However, there is no obligation on anyone else’s part to talk to him, respond to his questions or even give this liberal doofus the time of day.

So my suggestion would be for the Nevada Republican Central Committee and/or its Executive Board, to adopt “The Ralston Resolution” at its next earliest opportunity along the following lines…

WHEREAS, the Nevada Republican Party fully supports the First Amendment prohibition on government abridging freedom of the press and acknowledges the importance of the media in reporting on the government and political campaigns, and

WHEREAS, the Nevada Republican Party nevertheless maintains that press rights come with responsibilities, including an obligation to present the news in a fair, unbiased and objective manner, and

WHEREAS, the Nevada Republican Party understands that the First Amendment prohibition on abridging freedom of the press does not extend to private organizations and individuals and does not require such private organizations and individuals to cooperate or communicate with the press, and

WHEREAS, Jon Ralston is a liberal blogger in Nevada who is also employed as editor of an online newsblog called the “Nevada Independent,” and

WHEREAS, Ralston has a long history of anti-conservative/anti-Republican blog posts, tweets and columns that betray any semblance of fair, objective, unbiased reporting, often absent even a minimal amount of journalistic ethics, and

WHEREAS, Ralston’s unrelenting anti-conservative/anti-Republican bias has undermined the campaigns of countless numbers of GOP candidates against the interests of the Nevada Republican Party, and

WHEREAS, Ralston’s role as an independent liberal blogger and tweeter cannot be separated from his job as editor of the Nevada Independent and poisons the work product of actual reporters and columnists employed by the newsblog,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Nevada Republican Central Committee hereby urges its candidates, party leaders and activists to refrain from granting interviews to, communicating with, or otherwise participating in any way with anyone affiliated with the Nevada Independent – including, but not limited to, debates, forums and podcasts – unless or until such time as Mr. Ralston is removed as editor, and/or from any other managerial role, of the publication.

Mark Halperin is not a household name unless you’re an “insider” dwelling in the DC Swamp. For those who have a life, Halperin is a former political analyst for MSNBC – which canned him in October after “at least a dozen” women accused him of workplace sexual misconduct. Eve Fairbanks... Read More

]]>

Mark Halperin is not a household name unless you’re an “insider” dwelling in the DC Swamp. For those who have a life, Halperin is a former political analyst for MSNBC – which canned him in October after “at least a dozen” women accused him of workplace sexual misconduct.

Eve Fairbanks is not one of the women. She moved to DC in 2005 to become a reporter at the same time Halperin, as she put it, “ran a chummy daily political newsletter, The Note, from his perch as political director of ABC News.” And last week Fairbanks wrote a column, “We’ll Be Paying For Mark Halperin’s Sins For Years To Come,” detailing her experience covering politics in the nation’s capital and why she left.

What’s extraordinary about the column – to me anyway – isn’t why and how Ms. Fairbanks became so disillusioned, but how closely her experiences in DC with Halperin mirror the longtime situation we suffer from here in Nevada with one of Halperin’s mini-me’s…Jon Ralston.

In fact, I’m going to rewrite Ms. Fairbank’s column below, only substituting Ralston’s name for Halperin’s, Carson City for Washington, the Ralston Reports newsletter for The Note, and a few other minor edits that don’t change the overall substance of the message – like substituting Democrat Nevada Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford for Democrat U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Those who have been involved in Nevada politics for the last decade or so will immediately recognize the amazing similarities to Ms. Fairbanks’ story. So let’s pretend a fictional cub reporter who started covering Nevada politics in the mid-2000’s wrote the following column about her experiences before bolting Carson City for greener pastures…

* * * *

I want to talk about the deeper, subtler, more insidious effect Jon Ralston has had on our politics – one which we’ll be paying for for years to come.

Ralston Reports purports to reveal Carson City’s secrets. In fact, its purpose is the exact opposite: to make the city, and Nevada politics, appear impossible to understand. It replaces normal words with jargon. It coined the phrase “Gang of 63” (and reports on) the clubby network of lobbyists, aides, pols, and hangers-on who supposedly, like the Vatican’s cardinals, secretly run Carson City. That isn’t true – power is so diffuse. But Ralston claims he knows so much more than we do, and we begin to believe it.

Once you believe that, it’s not hard to be convinced that politics is only comprehensible, like nuclear science, to a select few. There are those chosen ones – the people who flatter Ralston to get a friendly mention in his newsletter, the ones he declares to be in the know – and the rest of us. Ralston writes about Carson City like it is an intriguing game, the kind that masked aristocrats played to entertain themselves at 19th-century parties: Everyone is both pawn and player, engaged in a set of arcane maneuvers to win an empty jackpot that ultimately means nothing of true importance.

At the same time, Ralston Reports makes it seem that tiny events – a cough at a press conference, a hush-hush convo between Aaron Ford and Michael Roberson in a corridor – hold apocalyptic importance. Cloaked in seriousness, in reality Ralston Reports is not news but simple gossip.

Gossip: The word comes from the old English for “baptismal sponsor” – a godparent – and Ralston positions himself as the priest who stands between the layman and the sacred mysteries of Carson City, only letting a person through in exchange for the corrupting coin of accepting your own personal idiocy. It requires acknowledging, like a cult initiate, that you have to learn the Master’s arcane knowledge before claiming to know anything at all.

Ralston Reports is a cult. Between bits of knowledge in each email, Ralston inserts birthday wishes to his gang, cementing the impression of Carson City as a place where people are much more interested in buttering each other up than they are in the lives of the kind of Nevadans whose names Jon Ralston does not know.

We have apocalyptic politics in part because Ralston helps promote an apocalyptic approach to political coverage. It makes him and his little scoops seem hugely important: that conversation he overheard between Roberson and Ford mean everything!

Politics for Ralston is a game and its rules are constantly being transformed. Ralston Reports’ intentionally hyperbolic, breathless text present details like the fact that Sandoval “woke up late and went for a coffee with his pal Pete Ernaut” the way an ancient monarch’s courtiers used to examine his every sigh for divine omens.

People often attribute our contemporary sense of perpetual crisis to social media, as scrolling newsfeeds monopolize our attention. But Ralston set this bar for news in Nevada before Twitter and Facebook took over the media. His endless drumbeat of meaningless micro-scoops helped create the impression we were living at the edge of time, where the present is as momentous as anything that has ever occurred. The future, in this context, cannot take any time or energy to be properly imagined.

It was Ralston who drove me out of Carson City a decade ago. For the three self-conscious and self-flagellating years I worked there, I felt absolutely convinced I could say nothing of insight about the city, and thus about politics or Nevada life, unless I scored a rare invite to the politico-socialite Heather Murren’s dinner party at Adele’s. I thought insight was merely about access – about being able to immediately recognize whose initials were referred to in the top paragraph of that morning’s Ralston Reports.

Thus I shelved the freshest, most original thoughts and impressions I had about politics and logged weeks angling for an interview with the right aide, or an invite to the right party, both of which invariably left me feeling like I still hadn’t scored the juiciest tidbit of info. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride. I felt powerless, a hopeless bumbler and hick by dint of my own lack of cool at Incline Village dinners.

As the Ralston ethos spread, it corrupted or destroyed nearly every Nevada media property that encountered it. I worked at the Reno Tribune-Gazette (fictional). We were never going to compete with Ralston’s insider access, and we were never meant to. But he fostered a monopolar atmosphere in which the one marker of success at political writing was to beat Ralston Reports.

I remember thinking: This is not really news! This is not like Watergate or My Lai, where if a dogged reporter doesn’t out the truth, it will never be known. The only scoop was to beat the other racers to the finish line, perhaps by minutes, in getting the name up on our website.

This helped create a media environment where we shot from the hip in an effort to get everything out as fast as possible – and because we were on the web, we rebranded all the inevitable mistakes born of way-too-hasty work as “updates” instead of “corrections.” No wonder the media is so distrusted. We spent frantic days massaging sources to try to beat Ralston. We were like dogs slavering after a piece of meat, but we weren’t in the wild eating for survival: We were participants in a dog show, prancing for medals.

Now, 10 years later, polarized Nevadans claw at each other to prove that the other side doesn’t have the right information, destroying friendships and the fabric of our polity in the process. We live in Ralston’s world, where we presume there is an inside to which a wise person must gain access in order to have anything to understand or to say. This is the antithesis of a democratic, free, and equal society. In truth, Ralston’s purported “inside” only consists of one person: Ralston himself.

It’s a pity. Carson City deserves a press corps of as many outsiders as possible, not Ralston’s self-appointed club of lobbyists, aides, pols and “insiders.” And Nevada deserves a Carson City they feel capable of comprehending, if not now then someday. Instead, we get one whose journalistic don, in order to raise his own status, purposely makes it incomprehensible.

If you are part of a society, then you are a part of its politics. And the point at which politics becomes hard to understand is the point at which it is no longer politics but just competitive play, a Risk-style board game. Once there is only a handful of self-qualified players, we no longer qualify as a democracy, or perhaps even a polity.

Jon Ralston plays that game. The thing is, every night, as he clears the pieces off the table to start afresh, Nevada suffers.

As we begin to close out 2017 and move into the next election year, it’s time for a sneak-peak at the roster of candidates lining up for Nevada’s four congressional districts. CD-1: Democrat incumbent Rep. Dina Titus is a lock for re-election in this gerrymandered Democrat-for-life district. Some Republican(s) will... Read More

]]>

As we begin to close out 2017 and move into the next election year, it’s time for a sneak-peak at the roster of candidates lining up for Nevada’s four congressional districts.

CD-1: Democrat incumbent Rep. Dina Titus is a lock for re-election in this gerrymandered Democrat-for-life district. Some Republican(s) will run against her, as usual, but haven’t got a prayer.

CD-2: Republican incumbent Rep. Mark Amodei is a lock for re-election in this gerrymandered Republican-for-life district. His only possible vulnerability would be to a credible conservative challenge in a GOP primary. But unless he uncharacteristically throws President Trump under the bus, it ain’t gonna happen.

CD-4: Democrat incumbent Rep. Ruben Kihuen is the poster boy for “empty suit.” There’s no there there. The Invisible Man has more substance. But Rubey is protected by a Democrat voter registration advantage that will be extremely difficult to overcome short of another “red wave” like in 2014. Unlikely in this political environment.

But should such an electoral tsunami develop, the candidate most likely to fill Bill Buckley’s “most conservative candidate who can win” maxim is moderate Republican Las Vegas City Councilman Stavros Anthony, despite some rather strange notions as to the proper role of government when it comes to small businesses in a free market.

Now to CD-3, which Democrat incumbent Rep. Jacky Rosen – with her “extensive” congressional experience of less than a single year – is vacating for a shot at the U.S. Senate brass ring.

The likely Democrat candidate is going to be socialite Susie Lee. The Republican field is far more muddled.

There’s former Clark County GOP Chairman Dave McKeon, an establishment shill with more personal baggage than a Samsonite outlet store and whose only real political claim to fame is a father who was once a Congressman in California who almost no one in Nevada has ever heard of.

There’s Nevada State Sen. Scott Hammond – a nicer man in politics you’ll never find. But that’s the problem. Nice guys usually finish last in the rough-and-tumble of a congressional race. And he’ll be further burdened in a GOP primary by the fact that he voted for the largest tax hike in state history during the 2015 legislative session.

Out of the public eye and behind closed doors “Queen Vick” is often abrasive to the point of obnoxious and constantly portrays herself as the “true conservative” in the race who keeps her promises.

But the inescapable fact remains that despite signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge promising to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes,” Seaman broke that promise NINE times in the 2015 session. Good luck excusing that.

The new kid on the block is former Channel 8 (Las Vegas) consumer advocate Michelle Mortensen, who gives every indication of being an unapologetic rock-solid conservative true believer – including naming her daughter after Ronald Reagan!

She’s cheerful, articulate, well-informed on the issues, knows from first-hand experience how to deal with the media and isn’t afraid to throw a punch. If Mortensen can raise enough money to be competitive in this four-way primary she has an excellent chance to pull off an upset against her three experienced political opponents.

[caption id="attachment_8292" align="alignright" width="240"] 'Jihadi Jon" Ralston[/caption] Conservative-hating liberal blogger “Jihadi Jon” Ralston (pictured right) has been on a crusade against conservative Republican Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt for voting against a pardon for a man convicted of murder after admitting to it and then pleading guilty to the same... Read More

]]>

‘Jihadi Jon” Ralston

Conservative-hating liberal blogger “Jihadi Jon” Ralston(pictured right) has been on a crusade against conservative Republican Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt for voting against a pardon for a man convicted of murder after admitting to it and then pleading guilty to the same murder years later in a plea deal even though he claims he’s innocent.

Laxalt, as noted here a few days ago, based his “no” vote on the objections raised by the Clark County District Attorney’s office which prosecuted the case.

But now the D.A., Steve Wolson – a Democrat, so he gets a pass – supposedly told Jihadi Jon in an alleged email (that conveniently wasn’t linked to) that the Assistant D.A. who wrote the objection to the pardon “incorrectly referred to the plea bargain (in 1995) as a guilty plea.”

Technically, this is true.

He didn’t “plead” guilty in the first trial. He was FOUND guilty by a jury after he ADMITTED to the murder when first questioned by investigators. The subsequent plea agreement was to avoid the death sentence.

Later, during the appeals process, he actually pled guilty to second degree murder in a plea bargain. So he did, in fact, admit his guilt twice, but only technically pled guilty once. A difference without a real distinction.

But that hasn’t stopped our liberal fake news peddler from continuing his fatwa against Laxalt.

Over the weekend Jihadi Jon characterized the Nevada AG’s vote against the pardon as “bizarre” and “inexplicable.” And in a blog post he attacked five GOP lawmakers who on Friday published an op-ed defending Laxalt’s vote against the pardon.

And get this…

In the same blog post Jihadi Jon included a quote, also attacking Laxalt, by Laxalt’s Democrat gubernatorial opponent, Steve Sisolak, without disclosing that Sisolak is listed as a major financial contributor to the Ralston Rag blog!

So much for ethical “transparency.”

Also last week, on a separate issue – Nevada Sen. Dean Heller’s refusal to call for pervert Sen. Al Franken to resign (in the interest of disclosure, Heller’s opponent is one of my clients) – Jihadi Jon saw fit to refer to conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Victor Joecks as nothing more than a “GOP stenographer.”

Let me tell you a couple things about Victor…

He has a Bachelor’s degree in Science, History and Math from the illustrious, conservative Hillsdale College and was named Citizen Outreach’s “Conservative Rising Star” in 2009.

Before he joined the RJ at the beginning of this year, the man was vice president of Nevada’s premier conservative think tank where he wrote extensive, detailed position papers on all manner of public policies and issues – from education to health care to the budget and more.

Oh, he’s also in the Army National Guard and spent all of last year away from his wife and two young children serving in defense of this nation in Iraq.

And Jihadi Jon finds it appropriate to insultingly refer to this honorable, thoughtful man as a “GOP stenographer”?

Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

This Ralston clown has never met a bridge he wouldn’t burn. He’s strapped with partisan explosives and appears intent on self-detonating any day now, taking his newsblog and team of otherwise talented and professional reporters with him.

In his feverish, never-ending, jihad-like crusade against all things conservative, liberal blogger Jon Ralston exposed himself again this week for the partisan “fake news” hack he is - a daily exercise as reliable as the sun rising in the east. Angered by the fact that Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt... Read More

]]>

In his feverish, never-ending, jihad-like crusade against all things conservative, liberal blogger Jon Ralston exposed himself again this week for the partisan “fake news” hack he is – a daily exercise as reliable as the sun rising in the east.

Angered by the fact that Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt is not only a conservative but has reportedly “blacklisted” (No, Sen. Ford, that’s not a racial slur) Blogger Jon’s publication, Ralston has been on a tear for the last few days over Laxalt’s vote NOT to pardon Frederick Lee Steese, a convicted murderer.

A sampling of Blogger Jon’s bile and venom…

“This case is an embarrassment to the state and has been highlighted nationally. AG @adamlaxalt actually asked to abstain (!), then voted against pardoning an obviously innocent man. Wow.”

“ICYMI, my @TheNVIndy column on @Adamlaxalt’s no-good, horrible week in which he raised serious questions about his fitness to be governor.”

“First, the pardon, which showed a stunning abdication of duty caused by either extraordinary callousness or reckless disregard for justice. Either way, it is very close to a disqualifying act.”

“If you want more evidence of just how horrific @AdamLaxalt’s vote against pardoning an innocent man really was, read this thread.”

“My @TheNVIndy column that examines @AdamLaxalt’s unconscionable vote against pardoning an innocent man, his lame, logically fallacious and unchallenged explanation and his inability/refusal to answer basic issue questions on the trail

“So @AdamLaxalt doubles down on vote against a pardon for innocent man, says he chose Clark DA over a ‘liberal judge and a news story.’ Grotesque. And no explanation of desire to abstain. My God.”

My God, indeed.

This is supposed to be unbiased, objective journalism? Beam me up, Scotty!

Obviously the most important aspect of this matter is that Steese’s “obvious innocence” in the murder of Gerald Soules isn’t as obvious as Blogger Jon obviously wants you to believe it is.

Indeed, in voting against the pardon application Laxalt considered the objections raised by the Clark County District Attorney’s office in a letter submitted to the Parole Board on August 17, 2017.

In the letter, Steven S. Owens, Chief Deputy District Attorney, first described the June 4, 1992 murder itself…

“The 56 year old male victim was completely nude and lying on the floor halfway out of the bathroom. An enormous amount of blood was around Mr. Soules’ head. Mr. Soules’ throat had been slashed from one side to the other and there was a large knife wound to the mouth and numerous stab wounds to his head, face, chest, stomach and arms. The bathroom appeared to be the scene of a violent struggle. Two televisions and Mr. Soules’ 1986 Ford truck had been taken.”

Pretty grisly.

The investigation revealed that Mr. Soules hired Steese as a helper with his dog show at Circus-Circus. However, Steese was unable to get a work card due to a felony record. So he was let go from the job but continued to live with Mr. Soules for about a week.

Investigators also found a letter addressed to Fred Burke that was mailed to Mr. Soules’ home from an acquaintance in Pennsylvania. It was then discovered that “Fred Burke” was a fake name used my Steese.

Further investigation of a phone call between Steese and the acquaintance led authorities to believe Steese “had firsthand knowledge of the stabbing.”

The DA report continues…

“On June 18, 1992, applicant (Steese) was stopped by Nevada Highway Patrol in the area of Alamo, Nevada. He identified himself as Frederick Burke and was placed under arrest for possession of a stolen vehicle. Applicant had a pocket notebook that contained the name and address of the victim, Gerald Soules.

“One of the troopers recognized Mr. Soules’ name as being a recent murder victim in North Las Vegas. The trooper then called the police department. Applicant was placed in the custody of the North Las Vegas Police Department for interview. Applicant was Mirandized and waived his right to the presence of an attorney.

“During the interview, applicant admitted to stabbing Mr. Soules’ to death. He stated his intention was to take his property because he needed the money. When Mr. Soules awoke after applicant had entered his residence and for fear of being discovered the applicant stabbed and killed Gerald Soules. Applicant was then rebooked for the charges of Murder, Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Crime and Burglary. . . .

“During the interview of the applicant on the murder of Gerald Soules, applicant described in chilling detail how he came to murder Mr. Soules, his absconding and return to Las Vegas.”

On March 1, 1995 a jury found Steese guilty on all counts.

A series of appeals reaching the Nevada Supreme Court followed. In a settlement reached in 2014 the State agreed to vacate the 1995 convictions and sentences in return for Steese pleading guilty to Second Degree Murder with Use of a Deadly Weapon using an “Alford plea.”

An Alford plea means the accused claims he’s innocent but acknowledges, as D.A. Owens explained, “that the evidence the prosecution has would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

D.A. Owens went on to note that Steese “did not take the opportunity to provide any evidence of his alleged innocence but chose to plead Alford to the second degree murder charges.”

As a result of the agreement, Steese was released from prison for time served. He then petitioned the Parole Board for a full pardon to completely wipe clean his record in this violent crime – a request D.A. Owens strenuously objected to…

“The position of this Office is that pardons should be reserved for exemplary individuals under extraordinary circumstances in cases of lesser gravity. . . .

“Applicant had extensive charges as a juvenile in Texas. Applicant had charges in Utah, California, Florida and Nevada for Thefts, Burglaries, Grand Larceny, Armed Robbery and finally the burglary and murder of Mr. Soules. . . .

“The absurdity of Applicant having pled guilty twice to the murder of Mr. Soules, and is now asking the Board to absolve him as innocent of a murder he’s pled guilty to twice. Applicant is not a proper candidate for a pardon, accordingly the District Attorney’s Office does not support this application for a pardon.”

Attorney General Laxalt sided with the District Attorney’s Office.

Now that you’ve read the full story, go back and re-read the “embarrassing,” “grotesque” crap Blogger Jon has written on this matter in his ongoing partisan effort to defeat Mr. Laxalt in next year’s Nevada gubernatorial race.